Step 11: Connecting LEDs

Step 12: Battery Time!

Insert the battery, try the glove out and have fun with it!

The Touch Glove is an interactive piece intended for a user to experience the touch environment in a new and exciting way. Now, understanding texture is not only experienced by one’s sense of touch, but with the help of this glove, texture and touch can be experienced through the use of visual cues as well. A touch sensor is located in the index finger and when a user touches different textured surfaces the sensor activates distinctive patterns of LED lights, which illuminate depending on the surface being felt.

Step 2: Hand Cutouts

Using your cotton fabric trace your hand about ½ inch larger than it actually is making sure that the index finger is separated from all other fingers and cut out. Be sure to cut out three separate traces of your hand, as you will need all of them.

Step 3: LED Assembly

Assemble all 5 sets of LED Aniomagic lightboards in their rows (25 total LEDs), making sure that the 1-5 dots follow each other in a sequence. The positive side is indicated by the dot, negative the opposite. Sew all LED lightboards on a 10 inch long 4 inch wide piece of cotton fabric.

Step 4: Positives and Negatives

Be sure that all positive sewed rows connect together to have one thread output; the same should be done for the negative rows. All loose ends should be cut short and glued down with fabric glue as to not cross any circuits.

Step 5: First Testing

Test your 5x5 LED light square using your alligator clips, the Aniomagic schemer and custom board. Instructions on how to use the schemer can be found here:Aniomagic Help

Actually, I agree with the criticism: I have always felt that to identify someone by his disorder is limiting and denigratory. For that reason, I always attempt to say the person has the disease/disorder; it doesn't have him! To make it a bit clearer: I once had cancer--and I told doctors, nurses, etc, to identify me, ME, by name, not by the designation of cancer patient/sufferer/victim.

That is not how the English language works. Putting an adjective or adjectival phrase in front of a noun does not diminish the relative importance of a noun.Likewise, placing it first does not increase its significance or importance. Nor is this how information is conveyed in colloquial usage. Significance is NOT conveyed by position is English, but rather by spoken inflection.To put it simply, again, there is nothing wrong with the phrase "autistic children".

To the author of this instructable, I apologize for derailing comments about your instructable. You have created a rather interesting glove that could have multiple applications in a number of fields.

To those interested, I was not worried about proper English, I was only pointing out a politically correct way of referring to children with Autism. Most teachers and those from the medical community who work with Autism, point out that there is a politically correct way of referring to those affected by different diseases and disabilities. Please search for the "educational resource information center", also known as ERIC.

To those who made ridiculous statements, please think twice before entering a conversation because you "feel" you are right or think differently.

To Juxtupose, thank you for standing up for yourself. I wish more people saw the world the way you do.

The fact of the matter is, the "politically correct" formulation is based on an incorrect understanding of the mechanics of English language construction and, as Juxtupose alluded to, the manufacturing of offense when none is either intended or implied, nor even actually conveyed, by the language or the speaker. This over reaction, in general, is why the term "politically correct" is itself now seen as pejorative by the majority of speakers, and is not in and of itself a valid reason for complaint.If one is going to require others to modify long-standing language patterns, one should have a good reason, and this particular issue, as with many in the P.C. realm, has none. (In fact, one wonders why, with such emphasis on deemphasizing the disorder relative to those who suffer with it, one would continue to insist on capitalizing the name of a disorder, autism, that grammatically should not be, a construction that DOES convey emphasis in English.)This is much like the manufacture of the absurd term *polyamory to overcome perceived incorrect implications of the word "polygamy". Leaving aside the fact that the polyglotic hybridization in and of itself is linguistically untenable (the word should be either *multiamory or *polyagape" or even *polyeros") the fact is that the creation of the term was itself unnecessary, since the word it replaced did NOT suffer from the deficits it was supposed to ameliorate (namely that polygamy meant multiple marriages, and therefore did not apply to multiple liasons outside of marriage. While etymologically accurate, this is NOT what the term actually means in practico, as evidenced by its use in biology. Last I checked, neither polygamous nor monogamous species engaged in legally binding matrimonial unions.) As such, the original construction was sufficient, and there was no need to try to force a wholesale linguistic change.Another (admittedly a bit more debatable, but far more accessible) example would be the mass social upheaval during the 70s that surrounded the, for the most part successful, attempt to get society to abandoned perceived sexist terms such as mailman, in favour first of the tortured, and later abandoned, "mail person", and later "postal worker". But that is another story altogether (though also an interesting trip into language origins).Another, less debatable one, would be the now somewhat faltering push to force the adoption of the absurd, and unnecessary, neologism "Ms." (not necessary because the term Mrs already historically did NOT distinguish between married and unmarried women, unless the husband's first name was also used, and as such, could have just been linguistically re-expanded back to its original scope.)

I, as author of the offending remark, also apologize for derailing an instructable of sterling worth ( even if I wouldn't begin to know how to make it). I stand by my opinion. I have a niece with autism and think about her and her quirky, sweet, unique personality quite a bit. So I may overreact. I guess I'm a bit of a Quixote.

What the heck did I start? I thought I spent too much time over-analyzing stuff...sheesh. I have Asperger's myself and I think a whole body suit including the gloves would be perfect as one aspect of having autism is being overly sensitive to touch. (I personally can't stand it whenever someone wants to give me a hug.) Whenever I'm out walking, I usually trail my fingers over branches, rocks, leaves, etc. as long as it's not gooey or smelly (hint, hint...)

I don't know where on the spectrum my niece falls, but the way she handles hugs ( we all know not to actually hug her) is she holds out her thumb, and you respond by touching her thumb with your thumb. We can thereby express our affection without encroaching on her comfort zone.

I know, really! Just today I was proving it to someone I was talking to at the rabbit shelter I volunteer at. I was able to tell him just how much stress he was feeling at that moment (scale 1-10, he was an 8).

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but I really didn't read anything that was "ridiculous" in this thread - just opinions and debates over grammar. Do you think some of the replies are "ridiculous" because they don't concur with your statement or do you have another reason?

Another important fact to consider is that, even if English DID work this way (it still doesn't) the important factor in the sentence under consideration IS the autism, NOT the children as individuals. As such, the sentence is STILL appropriate, and the reaction knee-jerk political correctness.Consider the two alternates:"Have you thought of licensing this to[sic] made for autistim?"

and

"Have you thought of licensing this to[sic] made for children?

Which sentence properly conveys original intent? Can anyone truly claim it is the second?

I have to agree with manifold sky, there is nothing wrong with it, it's how the english language works. I have autism myself and it actually kinda gets to me when people are this sensitive about "autistic" vs. "with autism". I KNOW the disease hasn't got me, why would the way it's used in a sentence affect anything? it's a word, in a sentence, and I know the person saying it doesn't mean harm or offense, so why would I get offended? I mean really! in fact, it's not really PC at all! it just makes me feel patronized, like people I'll somehow be offended if somebody says I'm autistic rather then "i have autism" seriously, I'm more offended that somebody would think I'm that affected by words.

after reading all the remarks on autistic childre/children with autism, I kind afergot what e were looking at , the err "touch" glove. Other then being a prop for a science fiction show tell me again what it is for? It does look very cool none the less. (was that PC?)

Basically I wanted to built a prototype glove for individuals with neurological limitations, that impair their sense of touch. If an individual maybe can't feel texture at all or as much as they would like then the glove could provide them with sensory information in visual form to the touch they are experiencing. The glove takes one version of receiving sensory information (touch) and turns it into a vision based experience. But really anyone can have fun with the glove!

That does actually, for the sensory deprived (no joke). Neurological nastyness can deaden nerves in skin (like diabetics) so if they can't feel they can get a visual, if they are trainable. Then there are lepers, and people who have had trumatic brain injuries.

A child has autism s/he is not entirely "autistic". Regardless, this looks like something an autistic kid/person might benefit from. Has anyone offered it and if so what was the response? I love it - that was the first thing that came to mind.

Sure embedding a video is very simple! When you're writing the steps to your instructable simply click the icon in your edit window that says embed video. On youtube under the video there is a share button, click that and you can get the embedding code. Simply copy and paste into your instructable window and there you go!